Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

PruePhillip · Nov 12, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
It still wouldn't make spiderman real.

Our mythical Spiderman story hearkens back to a mysterious age a
millennium earlier. It provides details unknown to the generations in the
intervening thousand years - kings, cities,cultures, language, even the
names of individuals and ancient texts, offing clues to cultural cross-
pollination and the evolution of alphabets and languages.

You would wonder how this is possible. It's like finding a Lord of the
Rings world for real. I mean, for the intervening thousand years no-one
could even read and write, and absolutely nothing was known of this
age - save for the archeology.

Now imagine this Spiderman book was written and published in 1492.
In it it speaks of an English speaking nation that would eventually
colonize the continent - and we read details about wars, presidents,
the ethos of liberty, a grand empire, a refugee beacon, scientific
progress etc..

And they you are doubly stymied. How did it know the past, how did
it know the future?

That's the bible. And you are living in a bible age as the Jews return
to Israel, and antisemitism is in the news every day - pushing more
Jews to the Promised Land.

Subduction Zone · Nov 12, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Our mythical Spiderman story hearkens back to a mysterious age a
millennium earlier. It provides details unknown to the generations in the
intervening thousand years - kings, cities,cultures, language, even the
names of individuals and ancient texts, offing clues to cultural cross-
pollination and the evolution of alphabets and languages.

You would wonder how this is possible. It's like finding a Lord of the
Rings world for real. I mean, for the intervening thousand years no-one
could even read and write, and absolutely nothing was known of this
age - save for the archeology.

Now imagine this Spiderman book was written and published in 1492.
In it it speaks of an English speaking nation that would eventually
colonize the continent - and we read details about wars, presidents,
the ethos of liberty, a grand empire, a refugee beacon, scientific
progress etc..

And they you are doubly stymied. How did it know the past, how did
it know the future?

That's the bible. And you are living in a bible age as the Jews return
to Israel, and antisemitism is in the news every day - pushing more
Jews to the Promised Land.

We have no come close to make the discoveries of your fantasies. We have only found that some of the stories of the Bible might not be 100% wrong. Your claims are worse than proclaiming Spiderman real.

TagliatelliMonster · Nov 12, 2019

PruePhillip said:
And they you are doubly stymied. How did it know the past, how did
it know the future?

That's the bible.

No, it isn't.

And you are living in a bible age as the Jews return
to Israel, and antisemitism is in the news every day - pushing more

Jews to the Promised Land.

It's called a self-fullfilling prophecy.
If I go to a restaurant and order a steak and then the waiter brings me a steak, then that waiter didn't fullfill a "prophecy".

It Aint Necessarily So · Nov 12, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Now imagine this Spiderman book was written and published in 1492.
In it it speaks of an English speaking nation that would eventually colonize the continent - and we read details about wars, presidents, the ethos of liberty, a grand empire, a refugee beacon, scientific progress etc..

That would be impressive prophecy, far beyond the quality of biblical prophecy, which is vague and nonspecific, often predicts the obvious and that which is easily guessed (there will be wars, empires will fall, etc), is generally useless (how about a prediction that somebody can use), and may be self-fulfilling.

Mere human understanding eclipses biblical prophecy :

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

Sagan is referring to highly specific predictions of things the existence of which was not expected before the scientific predictions were made such as the bending of light by gravity, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of pristine nebulae, and most recently, the Higgs boson.

And none of that makes me think a divine prescience was involved, even less so with biblical scripture. I see the guesses of ancient men there.

PruePhillip · Nov 12, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
That would be impressive prophecy, far beyond the quality of biblical prophecy, which is vague and nonspecific, often predicts the obvious and that which is easily guessed (there will be wars, empires will fall, etc), is generally useless (how about a prediction that somebody can use), and may be self-fulfilling.

Mere human understanding eclipses biblical prophecy :

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

Sagan is referring to highly specific predictions of things the existence of which was not expected before the scientific predictions were made such as the bending of light by gravity, the cosmic microwave background, the chemical composition of pristine nebulae, and most recently, the Higgs boson.

And none of that makes me think a divine prescience was involved, even less so with biblical scripture. I see the guesses of ancient men there.

The GENERAL thrust of biblical prophecy concerns the Messiah, the Jews and Israel.
The Messiah will come as Redeemer, dying for his people, and then as King reigning.
Israel is told it will lose its nation twice and return twice. It is told the nation that will
"cut off" the Messiah will also destroy Israel, Jerusalem and the temple.
The Jews will remain as a people (not vanish after 4 or 5 generations as is usually the
case) but few in number (should be about 300 million today) a people cursed but who
will return out of the nations that were their "graves" in the last days when the Gentiles
time is "fulfilled" and take back their nation with the sword.
The Jews will be attacked by that nations around them and maybe Russia - but they
will have the alliance of a nation beyond the seas that has no name in the bible.
The Jews will see their Messiah return, and mourn for Him who they crucified.

That's the basic theme of the biblical prophecy. We are living in it now.
A scientific test - I predict that antisemitism will increase exponentially. The bible says
that the Jews will be back in Israel when it faces a war of fire, "all of them."

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

Windwalker said:
Do you have scientific reasons for denying what all scientists say is true, that all animals on this planet evolved from earlier life forms, or species? If not, then you are denying it for non-scientific reasons. Correct?

No they are not. No scientist believes that evolution does not mean species evolve into other species, except of course for pseudoscientists like religious creationists, who are not really doing science at all, but simply trying to sound "sciency" in order to not have to accept the actual science.

What may be debated is the mechanisms of how exactly that has happened, not whether it has happened. That is an established fact that this has indeed happened. Debates are not about the fact it happened, but how it happens, not if it happened. That has already been established as a fact.

That's perfectly fine you are choosing to deny science because of how you choose to read the book of Genesis. What is not fine, is you not admitting that.

At least you'd be truthful in saying, "I reject all the branches of the sciences which all claim without exception the evolution of animals life forms from one species into another over time, because of how I read the book of Genesis. They are all wrong, regardless of their expertise, because I believe the creation story in Genesis should be read as a historically and scientifically accurate account of creation". That is an honest answer, as opposed to saying you accept evolution in order to sound like you're not a science-denier.

Now then, now that we have established trutfully you reject science because your faith doesn't allow for you to change how you think about the book of Genesis, can you answer my question now? Which is, why is it some Christians don't feel a need to deny science, while still believing in God, and you feel a need to deny science in order to still believe in God?

Can you explain the difference between their faith, and yours? How can they believe in God, yet accept the science, and you cannot? How is it other Christians still believe in God, and accept what science tells us about the evolution of all species on this planet from a single life form, into many? And finally, what is more important? Faith, or holding fast to our ideas about God and not allowing them to change or be changed for us?

You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

ecco said:
That's a completely false statement. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.

If you Google "abiogenesis scientific papers" you'll come up with over 12,000 results. That's not "near-empty".

There are 12,000 position papers describing the mechanisms of abiogenesis? Wonderful! Please sum their consensus here as to how life began. Be sure to use lay terms as I'm willfully ignorant. After all, I want to intelligently, concisely explain how life began without divine intervention, when friends ask. Can you sum it in a few sentences, bearing in mind that most of those 12,000 "results" are emphasizing the same consensus?

I admit I will search your response with care to see how scientists, working singly and collaboratively for decades, have overcome issues of chirality, water displacement of materials, entropy, climate change, etc. that make abiogenesis so extraordinary.

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Science refutes much of Genesis and Exodus. The Christian Bible is not only not compatible with science, it isn't even compatible with itself.

Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. And it has mountains of evidence in its support, with likely much more to come. You'd know that if you had any interest in learning science.

You have no chance of convincing anybody educated in the sciences if you continually get the science wrong.

Nope. Like I said, when you make mistakes of this magnitude, you disqualify your criticisms of science.

See there? You love unproven, un-duplicated, untested ideas such as that a god or gods exist. And you are happy to make unevidenced claims as if they were facts.

Except that we keep making forward progress thanks to scientists dedicating entire careers and funding sources underwriting billions of dollars in research. They seem to disagree with your religious proclamation. And it's a good thing, too.

No, you were wrong - again.

It's really a simple concept. If your net worth is zero, and you take out a loan - say $100,000 - and buy a house with it, you now have $100,000 in equity in the house and a $100,000 debt. Your net worth remains zero, but you now have a deed and a mortgage. By your reckoning, neither of those things exist.

That doesn't rule out the hypothesis. To think otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy ("If you haven't proven it, it's untrue")

Besides, unproven isn't a deal breaker for you. You bought into creationism with no evidence. You believe it because you want it to be true. Even if there were no evidence for abiogenesis, it would be on as firm a footing as creationism, and for those willing to believe by faith as you do, it could be believed by faith.

Your double standard for science and dogma - one requires proof, the other doesn't - is also a logical fallacy (special pleading - "Your beliefs require proof to be believed, but mine don't")

This IS exciting. Please explain in a short sentence or two, the current consensus hypothesis of how abiogenesis occurred. Please use lay terms, as I'm woefully under-read and willfully ignorant, exactly as you've described.

Windwalker · Nov 12, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

Yes, they have different points of view on how things happen in evolution. But, they do NOT dispute the fact that evolution, in however that works, is behind one species evolving into a different species. No legitimate scientist imagines evolution is not behind the creation of the human species. Only religious creationists do that, and they are not legitimate scientists. There is no scientific theory of "special creation", and certainly no evidence of such being the case.

So yes, all scientists do accept that evolution created our species from an earlier species on that branch of the evolutionary tree. While they may disagree on the finer points, they are not in disagreement of the fact that humans did not just appear via a "special creation", that we are not tied into the evolutionary tree.

So, why do some Christians have no problem accepting the above, while others such as yourself need to deny these things, such as trying to say they aren't in agreement, when in fact they are? It certainly is not because you are a scientist and are looking at other data the rest have ignored somehow. Yes, we have a lot more to learn about how evolution works, but it is already fully settled in the sciences that it is what created our species, as well as all species on earth.

The question is, why do you willfully choose to not accept it? Does it threaten your faith in God? Would you quit believe in God? Or simply do what other Christians have done and change how they understand God in their continuing faith? It didn't cause them to become an atheist. Would it cause you to become one? Is that your worry?

Subduction Zone · Nov 12, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
You start from false premises like "ALL scientists agree on X" when they do not, and thousands of scientists and educators, secular and religious have expressed their concerns regarding many points in evolutionary theory, paleontology, etc.

Sorry, but that is not exactly true. There are very few scientists in the field that have expressed these supposed concerns. The dishonest petitoin of the Discovery Toot has long since been shown to be worthless since they let almost any "scientist" sign it and when those in the field requested that their names were removed due to its dishonesty they refused to do so.

What reliable source do you have to support this claim?

Subduction Zone · Nov 12, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
There are 12,000 position papers describing the mechanisms of abiogenesis? Wonderful! Please sum their consensus here as to how life began. Be sure to use lay terms as I'm willfully ignorant. After all, I want to intelligently, concisely explain how life began without divine intervention, when friends ask. Can you sum it in a few sentences, bearing in mind that most of those 12,000 "results" are emphasizing the same consensus?

I admit I will search your response with care to see how scientists, working singly and collaboratively for decades, have overcome issues of chirality, water displacement of materials, entropy, climate change, etc. that make abiogenesis so extraordinary.

I see that your cerationism has kicked in and it does not allow you to understand arguments.

Here is a hint, try to ask honest questions if you don't want more than a snarky repsonse. You were the one that made the false claim of "failed experiments".

ecco · Nov 12, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Re Edom
Evidence of Solomon's mines: Archaeologists dates mines in south of Israel to days of King Solomon

From your own linked article:

It's entirely possible that David and Solomon existed and even that they exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says.

Note the phrasing: "entirely possible". That's really vague and that's from an archeologist (Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel Aviv University's Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures) with a very vested interest in finding evidence to support Jewish Scripture.

ecco · Nov 12, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
And none of that makes me think a divine prescience was involved, even less so with biblical scripture. I see the guesses of ancient men there.

The guesses and the hopes and dreams.

Someday we will have a homeland.
Someday our saviour will return.
Someday...

ecco · Nov 12, 2019

PruePhillip said:
The Jews will see their Messiah return, and mourn for Him who they crucified.

Where does Jewish prophecy say they will mourn for someone they crucified. Who did the Jews crucify? I thought it was the Romans who allegedly crucified the alleged Christ.

PruePhillip said:
A scientific test - I predict that antisemitism will increase exponentially.

Do you mean there will be more anti-Semitism than there was in Spain during the Inquisitions?

Do you mean there will be more anti-Semitism than there was in Germany 1935-1945?

In any case, your "prediction" is too vague to meet the standards of a true prophecy. It certainly isn't anything resembling a scientific test.

ecco · Nov 12, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I said--accurately--that scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty.

BilliardsBall said:
There are 12,000 position papers describing the mechanisms of abiogenesis? Wonderful!

Yes, it is wonderful. It also shows that your assertion "that scientific research into abiogenesis is near-empty" is Male Bovine Excrement. It also shows that your use of the word "--accurately--" is more Male Bovine Excrement.

BilliardsBall said:
Please sum their consensus here as to how life began. Be sure to use lay terms as I'm willfully ignorant.

It is not my job to educate you. It is not my job to even try to educate someone who has shown, over seven years of posts, that he has no interest in overcoming his indoctrinated fundamentalist religious beliefs.

BilliardsBall said:
After all, I want to intelligently, concisely explain how life began without divine intervention, when friends ask.

No, you don't. All you want to do is continue to proselytize.

BilliardsBall said:
Can you sum it in a few sentences, bearing in mind that most of those 12,000 "results" are emphasizing the same consensus?

What does that mean - emphasizing the same consensus? How do you know what the results show? You haven't looked at them.

BilliardsBall said:
I admit I will search your response with care to see how scientists, working singly and collaboratively for decades, have overcome issues of chirality, water displacement of materials, entropy, climate change, etc. that make abiogenesis so extraordinary.

Gee. You've picked up some really interesting sciencey sounding words from AIG. Too bad you don't understand any of them. But maybe I'm wrong. Tell us the how and why of "entropy" affecting abiogenesis.

PruePhillip · Nov 12, 2019

ecco said:
Where does Jewish prophecy say they will mourn for someone they crucified. Who did the Jews crucify? I thought it was the Romans who allegedly crucified the alleged Christ.
Do you mean there will be more anti-Semitism than there was in Spain during the Inquisitions?
Do you mean there will be more anti-Semitism than there was in Germany 1935-1945?
In any case, your "prediction" is too vague to meet the standards of a true prophecy. It certainly isn't anything resembling a scientific test.

Essentially it was the Jewish people who crucified Jesus. They just threatened to make trouble
for Pilot if he didn't concede. Says in Daniel that the nation that destroys Israel, Jerusalem and the
temple will also "cut off" the Messiah. This is Rome - so, it's complicated.
Zechariah 9 and 12 speak of the Jewish nation mourning for the lowly one they "pierced", the one
who now comes as a conquering King.
I don't know how much antisemitism there will be. But it's now fashionable for the Left and Right
to target the Jews. Many blame the Jews for the Palestinians, but that's a fig leaf as many blamed
the Jews for WWII.
The "scientific test" here is that antisemitism will rise to the point for many/most that they emigrate
to Israel. Antisemitism in Australia rose 80% last year. At this rate it won't be many generations and
you will see as few Jews in Western countries as you do in Arab countries. That's my private thoughts
anyhow. Just remember what I said after I am dead and gone (!)

PruePhillip · Nov 12, 2019

ecco said:
From your own linked article:

It's entirely possible that David and Solomon existed and even that they exerted some control over the mines in the Timna Valley at times, he says.

Note the phrasing: "entirely possible". That's really vague and that's from an archeologist (Dr. Erez Ben-Yosef of Tel Aviv University's Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures) with a very vested interest in finding evidence to support Jewish Scripture.

Yes, they state "entirely possible" meaning it's not a fact.
What is a fact is that whole nations can exist and live with
little evidence (think Genghis Khan)
I suspect, long term, that DNA will tease out the size of
these ancient populations, just as it has been the case
for the Neanderthals (more inbreeding, less people.)

It Aint Necessarily So · Nov 13, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Please explain in a short sentence or two, the current consensus hypothesis of how abiogenesis occurred.

Sure. Chemical evolution. Simple organic molecules recombined under the blind forces of nature to form the building blocks of life. Is that short enough for you?

The rest is up to you. Your education is your responsibility - not that of other RF participants. Buy a book, or enroll in a university course on the subject. At the very least, search the Internet for sources and review them. If you'll make that minimal effort, I and others here will be glad to discuss with you whatever it is you are studying and have specific questions about.

In my experience, bringing data to creationists demanding it and pretending to care about it is always a waste of time. They don't even look at it because they simply don't care.

PruePhillip · Nov 13, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Sure. Chemical evolution. Simple organic molecules recombined under the blind forces of nature to form the building blocks of life. Is that short enough for you?

The rest is up to you. Your education is your responsibility - not that of other RF participants. Buy a book, or enroll in a university course on the subject. At the very least, search the Internet for sources and review them. If you'll make that minimal effort, I and others here will be glad to discuss with you whatever it is you are studying and have specific questions about.

In my experience, bringing data to creationists demanding it and pretending to care about it is always a waste of time. They don't even look at it because they simply don't care.

I am sure you are right, but until someone actually DOES it, we don't know, technically.
And we can't say it's "blind" because we don't know that, either.
The universe is a weird place.

BilliardsBall · Nov 13, 2019

Windwalker said:
Yes, they have different points of view on how things happen in evolution. But, they do NOT dispute the fact that evolution, in however that works, is behind one species evolving into a different species. No legitimate scientist imagines evolution is not behind the creation of the human species. Only religious creationists do that, and they are not legitimate scientists. There is no scientific theory of "special creation", and certainly no evidence of such being the case.

So yes, all scientists do accept that evolution created our species from an earlier species on that branch of the evolutionary tree. While they may disagree on the finer points, they are not in disagreement of the fact that humans did not just appear via a "special creation", that we are not tied into the evolutionary tree.

So, why do some Christians have no problem accepting the above, while others such as yourself need to deny these things, such as trying to say they aren't in agreement, when in fact they are? It certainly is not because you are a scientist and are looking at other data the rest have ignored somehow. Yes, we have a lot more to learn about how evolution works, but it is already fully settled in the sciences that it is what created our species, as well as all species on earth.

The question is, why do you willfully choose to not accept it? Does it threaten your faith in God? Would you quit believe in God? Or simply do what other Christians have done and change how they understand God in their continuing faith? It didn't cause them to become an atheist. Would it cause you to become one? Is that your worry?

"But, they do NOT dispute the fact that evolution, in however that works, is behind one species evolving into a different species."

I do NOT dispute the fact that evolution makes one species evolve into another, so please stop throwing straw men in my face. Your hatred and intolerance for my religious views goes against the love and tolerance you normally preach. Your double standard tires me greatly.

What would help you, no doubt, is to be respectful enough to ask what I believe, rather than accuse me of things like disbelieving evolution. Your rhetorical questions are off-point, rude and tiresome.

Looking for a debate with creationists (I am an atheist)

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member